Monday, April 20, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Local Government Allows Personal Use of Government Vehicles In Violation of State Codes?


§ 2.2-1179. Use of vehicles for commuting.
No passenger-type vehicle purchased or leased with public funds shall be used to commute between an employee's home and official work station without the prior written approval of the agency head and, in the case of vehicles assigned to the centralized fleet, the DirectorThe Director shall establish guidance documents governing such use of vehicles and shall ensure that costs associated with such use shall be recovered from employees. Employees who do not report to an official work station shall not be required to pay for travel between their homes and field sites. Guidance documents established by the Director and recovery of costs shall not apply to use of vehicles by law-enforcement officers. By executive order of the Governor, such guidance documents may extend to all motor vehicles of any type owned by the Commonwealth, or such of them as the Governor may designate.
(1989, c. 479, § 33.1-406; 2001, cc. 815842, § 2.1-548.07; 2013, c. 485.)

§ 2.2-1178. Use of passenger-type vehicles on an assigned basis.
A. Passenger-type vehicles assigned to the centralized fleet may be assigned to persons performing state duties only if deemed necessary by the head of the agency or institution requesting such vehicle and approved in writing by the Director. Request for such vehicle shall be made in writing on forms prepared by the Department of General Services by the head of the agency or institution explaining in detail the purpose of or reason for such assignment.
B. Assignments shall be approved by the Director only on the basis of one of the following criteria:
1. The vehicle shall be driven not less than the annual usage standard. The Director shall promulgate a minimum mileage standard taking into account best value, industry standard practices, and the use of alternative transportation methods;
2. The vehicle shall be used by an employee whose duties are routinely related to public safety or response to life-threatening situations:
a. A law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, with general or limited police powers;
b. An employee whose job duties require the constant use or continuous availability of specialized equipment directly related to their routine functions; or
c. An employee on 24-hour call who must respond to emergencies on a regular or continuing basis, and emergency response is normally to a location other than the employee's official work station; or
3. The vehicle shall be used for essential travel related to the transportation of clients or wards of the Commonwealth on a routine basis, or for essential administrative functions of the agency for which it is demonstrated that use of a temporary assignment or personal mileage reimbursement is neither feasible nor economical.
C. No assignment shall be for a period exceeding two years except upon review by the Director as to the continued need for the assignment.
D. The use of such vehicle shall be limited to official state business.
(1989, c. 479, § 33.1-405; 2001, cc. 815842, § 2.1-548.06; 2011, c. 611.)

Verses Gloucester County Human Resources Information:

Use of County Vehicles and Equipment 620.1 Introduction The operation of vehicles is necessary in conducting the day-to-day business of the County. This use of vehicles represents one of the greatest risks facing the County. Recognizing this, it is imperative that the County take reasonable steps to control the use of County and privately owned vehicles while performing County business. This policy sets forth the guidelines and policies governing the operation of vehicles used in the performance of official County business. Department and agency heads are responsible for implementation and enforcement of this policy for all vehicles and drivers assigned to their department.

 620.2 Applicability and Definition This policy applies to all County vehicles as defined herein and to all employees who routinely or occasionally drive a County vehicle. The term County vehicle as used in this policy is defined as (1) any County owned, leased or rented vehicle, including special-use vehicles such as construction and excavation equipment designed to operate primarily offroad but driven on public roads to a job site, and (2) privately owned vehicles when used in the performance of official County duties. (Sheriff’s Department and Department of Social Services vehicles and employees are covered by their respective operating policies.)

 620.3 Authorized Use The following examples are an attempt to cover most circumstances or conditions of authorized use and should not be considered all inclusive:

 A. Official Use - County vehicles are authorized “For Official Use Only.” Such vehicles are to be utilized to perform the functions and to conduct the operations and programs of the Department or Agency which is using the vehicle. County vehicles may be utilized both within and outside of the County for official use. 

B. Transport of Unofficial Parties – When such official use includes the transport of unofficial parties, that is parties not directly related to County business, the County Administrator must first approve such transport. 

C. Use of Vehicles by other Public Entities - Employees of other public entities may operate County vehicles under the specific approval of the department head as long as such operation is essential in conducting County business. Department heads granting permission for non-County employees to operate County vehicles are responsible for ensuring that the driver is properly licensed, trained and qualified to operate the vehicle. 

D. Personal Use - County vehicles may not be utilized for personal purposes. Exceptions include those employees who, while conducting County business, are away from their normal place of work at mealtime and those employees with an assigned  vehicle where such vehicle is the only practical mode of transportation available at mealtime. Employees whose duties require them to be away from a County office building during the day may briefly stop at a commercial establishment located along their work required travel route to use a restroom or purchase a refreshment. Department and Agency Heads are charged with reviewing with staff appropriate and de minimis usage identified herein. 

E. Take Home –In order to meet the business needs of the County, the County Administrator may authorize an employee to take a County vehicle home. County vehicles taken home overnight shall be locked and secured in the responsible employee's driveway or other designated parking space which is in close proximity to the employee’s residence. It is the intent of the County to limit the use of take home vehicles to the greatest extent practicable and to restrict this practice to those living within Gloucester County unless specifically stated otherwise. An employee in possession of a take home vehicle may stop briefly at a grocery store, pharmacy, etc. for reasons of personal convenience along the most direct route to or from their residence.  Such stops must be completed within one half hour of the beginning or end of the employee’s shift. The following examples are an attempt to illustrate the circumstances under which the County Administrator, or his/her designee, may authorize an employee to take a County vehicle home and should not be considered all inclusive: 

1. Employees who are subject to 24-hour call out, and due to the nature of their work, report directly to a jobsite away from a County facility in a County vehicle required by the nature of their response.

 2. Duty vehicles designed or equipped for high priority response where response time will be enhanced by allowing the vehicle to remain in custody of individual employee. Employees assigned to duty vehicles which are taken home must be available to respond upon request on a 24-hour basis any time the employee has custody of the vehicle. 

3. To prepare for a post-disaster response in order to plan an effective and efficient recovery. 

4. When travel from the employee's home, either within or outside of Gloucester County, to a destination for official County business is the most direct and/or closest route, (for example, early morning travel to a conference).

 620.4 Control and Use of Vehicles The County Administrator, department and agency heads shall carefully monitor and take necessary action to preclude operations that are contrary to the policies and procedures herein. Gloucester County Administrative Policy Gloucester, Virginia Section:

 620 Page: Page 3 of 10 Supersedes: N/A Effective Date: November 1, 2014 Title: 

Use of County Vehicles and Equipment Authorized By: County Administrator The following examples are an attempt to cover most circumstances or conditions of use and should not be considered all inclusive: A. Vehicle Identification - All service vehicles utilized by County departments will be identified with the official logo, departmental designation, and color scheme as designated by the County Administrator. 

B. Proper Licensing - Employees and authorized drivers must have a valid vehicle operator’s or commercial driver’s license in their possession at all times while operating a County vehicle. 

C. Qualified Operator – A qualified operator (driver) must be positioned at the vehicle's controls any time it is running unless otherwise approved by the manufacturer. No vehicle shall be left unattended without first stopping the motor, locking the ignition, removing the key and locking the doors or otherwise securing the vehicle to prevent theft, vandalism, and unintentional movement. 

D. Seatbelts - All drivers of County vehicles and all passengers therein shall properly use seat belts (if the vehicle is equipped with seat belts). Employees are prohibited from removing, deactivating, modifying or otherwise defeating any occupant restraint system installed by the manufacturer unless approved or instructed by the manufacturer. 

E. Motor Vehicle Laws - Employees shall obey all City/County, State and Federal laws while operating County vehicles and any time personal vehicles are used on official County business. Drivers should practice “defensive driving” and anticipate and observe the actions of other drivers and control their own vehicle in such a manner so as to avoid an accident involvement. 

F. Prohibition of Alcohol and Illegal Substances - It is prohibited for County vehicles to be utilized if the driver is impaired by, or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, drugs, or illegal substances. The possession or consumption of alcohol, intoxicants, or illegal drugs while operating a County vehicle is also prohibited. 

G. Smoking - Smoking and/or the use of tobacco products is not permitted in County vehicles. 

H. Mobile Communication Devices – Drivers of County vehicles should refrain from operating cellular telephones or other electronic devices that may cause driver distraction while operating a County vehicle. Drivers shall make every attempt to properly park their vehicle prior to using such devices. Drivers must adhere to Virginia laws and jurisdictional laws while traveling out of the State. 

I. Rendering Assistance - County vehicles may not be used to pull or push any other vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped to do so and the driver has been properly Gloucester County Administrative Policy Gloucester, Virginia Section: 620 Page: Page 4 of 10 Supersedes: N/A Effective Date: November 1, 2014 Title: Use of County Vehicles and Equipment Authorized By: County Administrator trained. It is permissible to render assistance in case of emergencies and to transport unofficial parties in such cases. 

J. Passengers – No person shall be allowed to ride on running boards, fenders, hoods, tailgates, beds, or other locations on a vehicle not designed or approved by the vehicle manufacturer for passenger seating. 

K. Cargo - When cargo, materials or tools are being transported, the driver is responsible for assuring that all items are properly secured to prevent them from shifting or falling from the vehicle or trailer. 

L. Backing up large vehicles – Drivers of large vehicles and/or construction equipment will avoid whenever possible, operating the vehicle in reverse to avoid the necessity of backing. Before entering the vehicle, the driver shall check the rear clearance of the vehicle. 

1. The driver shall not back the vehicle unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety and without interfering with other traffic. 

2. A spotter should be used whenever possible. Before and during backing movements, the driver and spotter will check blind zones for objects not visible in rear-view mirrors, watch both sides for adequate clearance, and limit speed to allow a full stop on short notice. 

M. Towing - A driver whose vehicle is towing a trailer, dolly, or other equipment shall ensure that the trailer hitch is securely latched, adequate for the load being towed, properly installed on the towing vehicle, and that safety chains are properly attached. 

1. The driver shall also ensure that the tow vehicle, in general, is rated to tow the type and weight of trailer being towed. 

2. The driver shall ensure that the trailer or other towed equipment is supplied with proper lighting including brake lights, turn signals, and running lights. 3. Any vehicle having a load which extends more than four (4) feet beyond the rear shall have the end of the load marked with a red flag, not less than twelve (12) inches in square. 

N. Intentional Misuse - Intentional misuse, abuse, moving violations, reckless operation, or negligent actions while operating a County vehicle may result in the suspension of the employee's driving privileges and is grounds for further disciplinary action. 

O. Citizen Complaints – Complaints regarding the use or operation of County vehicles are received in the County Administrator’s office. The County Administrator, or appropriate department or agency head, shall investigate the complaint and, if necessary, take appropriate corrective action. 


Either way, you can read the rest at the above link.  Anyone see major violations between county policy and state Codes?  Looks to us as though the county is in direct violation of Commonwealth Codes as is par for the course.  How many other violations does that county allow on its books?  How much of your tax money do county officials think they are allowed to waste?  When they are wasting your money like this, of course they need more tax revenue.  Of course they are going to raise your taxes.  So what if they are only wasting your money as we can clearly see they have no issues in doing so.  We think they should raise your taxes to 95 cents per hundred dollars and not leave it at just 72 cents.  That way they can buy more cars and waste more gas.  You should buy all of them lunch everyday.

  You should also buy them breakfast and dinner as well.  They all want raises so you should give them at least a 10% raise each and every year.  Why should they have to suffer even though you may be suffering?  You should pay all of their health care costs as well as that of their families costs too.  You should provide all of the county employees with no cost and no percentage loans so they can all buy and live in nice houses.  Maybe even your old house that you can no longer afford.

  You should also do the same so that they can all buy and drive nice cars or trucks.  Each employee should be able to afford an expensive Disney vacation at least once a year as well.  Come on and step up for these folks.  Who cares if they are in total violation of what Virginia allows and does not allow.  At least you will be doing your part in ensuring a truly rotten future for all of us.

Letter To The Daily Press, Chris Hutson's Voting Record and Teresa Altemus



Dear Ms. Hubbard,
 
Your April 19th article on Teresa Altemus appears to be just one more in a long line of articles written by daily press reporters responsible for the Gloucester County area that are biased to say the least. It appears that you wrote the article with much enthusiasm directed at supporting Gloucester Point Supervisor Chris Hutson in his reelection efforts, the unlawful and very costly actions of the Gloucester 40 and Gloucester’s former Commonwealths Attorney, while casting a negative cloud about Mrs. Altemus; even though she and the other targeted Supervisors were all found not guilty of all charges. In fact it was not Mrs. Altemus and the other targeted Supervisors who costGloucester County hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. It was a group of people, who were all associated with the same local civic organization (Rotary Club) that cost Gloucester Countyall of that money. Did anyone at the Daily Press ever look into why such effort was put into attempting to have Mrs. Altemus and the other targeted Supervisors removed from office? I think not. What were the Rotary folks trying to keep hidden from the People and who was directing them? Those are questions that still should be asked. It is also noteworthy that each of the individuals quoted in your article, except for John Walsh (the local Republican Committee Chair) has been discredited or rejected byGloucester voters. Perhaps it is that group which is continually looking in the rear view mirror rather than forward through the windshield.
 
There was absolutely nothing in your article about Mrs. Altemus’ views on anything that matters to the majority of the voters inGloucester County. There were no quotes from anyone supporting Mrs. Altemus, but there were numerous quotes from the other direction. In fact your article, in its own subtle way, tends to steer the reader away from Mrs. Altemus in favor of Mr. Hutson. What or who is the driving force behind Mr. Hutson having that privilege? It certainly cannot be a result of his track record as Supervisor for the Gloucester Point, Virginia district.
 
I personally contacted you via email on June 3, 2014 about Mr. Hutson’s conflict of interest in the Terrapin Cove Sewer project, but nothing was ever reported by the Daily Press. During the May 20, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting, Mr. Hutson voted to approve the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project.  Part of the project entailed installing public sewer along Laurel Drive at Gloucester Point at a total project cost of $773,638.  The vote was 4 in favor of the project and 3 against it. 
 
The following information was obtained from the GloucesterCounty online property database and is for property on Laureldrive that is owned by Mr. Hutson’s father and mother in-laws. 
Property Owner: THE BREEDEN TRUST
Owner Address:
PO BOX 122
GLOUCESTER POINTVA 23062
RPC #: 32740
Physical Location:
1672 LAUREL DR
Magisterial District: Gloucester Point
Tax Map #: 051C 5 C 5
 
Mr. Hutson should have abstained from voting on the Terrapin Cove sewer project in accordance with Commonwealth ofVirginia Conflict of Interest laws.  Without publicly disclosing his interest in the project area property, Chris Hutson not only voted for the project, he also acted as the primary public body advocate during the design, review and procurement processes. Shortly after the BOS meeting this information was brought to the attention of all of the Supervisors via an email message. After the email notification was sent it was further realized that Mr. Hutson’s father in-law has served on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee since 2004 and was reappointed for another four year term by Mr. Hutson in 2012. 
 
During the June 3, 2014 BOS meeting the Terrapin Cove project was brought back to the floor for further discussion by Supervisor Ashley Chrisco, on the premise that funding was uncertain due to the Commonwealth not yet approving its budget. That in itself was a cover up. The Terrapin Cove project was not a Commonwealth funded project and the County’s ability to fund it was uncertain from the projects conception. Mr. Hutson knew this all along. The BOS voted to delay the project start up and to pull funding from it until the Commonwealth approved its budget. Then, upon the recommendation of At Large Supervisor John Meyer, the Board directed that a certified letter be sent to each property owner within the project area asking the owners for a binding commitment to hook up to the sewer system if the project moves forward. This and other steps should have been accomplished before any other money was spent to design the sewer expansion. Due to the project area resident’s lack of hookup commitment, the Board ultimately voted to terminate the project with Mr. Hutson finally abstaining from the vote.  
 
At issue here is not only Mr. Hutson’s excessive spending practices, but also and most importantly, the conflict of interest votes he made. Mr. Hutson went so far when caught in the deception that he blamed his wife. His comment during the July 1, 2014 board meeting was, “I’m married, my wife doesn’t tell me anything.” What is even more curious about Mr. Hutson’s claim is he used the same excuse convicted former Governor McDonald was using at the time. One cannot help but wonder what else Mr. Hutson is hiding from the People with the assistance of the Daily Press.
 
In your article Mr. Hutson speaks about transparency. During a public hearing on October 7, 2014, Mr. Hutson essentially stated that the only way the Board of Supervisors knows what the People and Citizens want is through comments made at Board of Supervisor meetings during citizen comment periods. What about emails to the Board or to ones district representative, or phone calls, letters and face to face communications? I can honestly say Mr. Hutson has never responded to a single email I have sent to him and I live at Gloucester Point off of Terrapin Cove Road.
 
In your article Mr. Hutson touts how well the current Board is doing for the People of Gloucester, yet he has voted in opposition of the other board members on numerous occasions. The most recent occasion was his vote against the recently adopted 2016 County budget. Yet your article said nothing about Mr. Hutson’s voting record or his desire to raise Gloucester’s real estate tax rate from $.65 to $.72.
 
My question to you is; why did you write and why did the Daily Press publish such a biased article?
 
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester PointVirginia

Friday, April 17, 2015

Gloucester Animal Control Evidence of Fraud?



Back in May of 2010, the Crews residence was illegally raided and an illegal search warrant was used as part of that raid.  The evidence is right here.  This is the back end of that search warrant.  How do we know its illegal?  Simple, the name on the execution and return are that of Stephen T Baranek, who at that time was a deputy Animal Control officer.  Animal Control can not under Virginia code, ever, serve or execute a search warrant.  The front was issued and signed by Gloria Owens who is a deputy clerk of the circuit court.  But the case was held in District Court.  What business did a circuit court clerk have in district court business?  Also, a circuit court clerk can not at anytime issue a search warrant in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Yet we have shown that Gloucester has done just that.

Again, you see that the search warrant here is issued by Gloria Owens, Deputy Clerk of the Gloucester Circuit Court.  Search Warrants can only be issued by Judges or Magistrates.  Also, read how broad the search warrant is written.  Search Warrants must be very specific as to whom and or what is to be searched and or seized.  A broad search warrant is illegal.  Also note, there is no court stamp for the date of issue.  Only for the date of return.  How many violations can we find here?  

  I only recently received permission to publish this information and we are now showing all the dirt on this case.  


Above is one of the pictures taken by an Animal Control deputy showing Laura Crews to the far left with her hands behind her back because they arrested her.  They did not have a search warrant at that time like they claim in the court report.  The only thing the Crews family ever received was a copy of the front page.  I had to fight the county for over a month under FOIA to get the majority of the rest of it.  It took Congressman Rob Wittman's office to step in and force the county to provide that information which was not completed to my request.

  The picture screen shot above also shows the meta data on the camera used and the time and date the picture was taken.  They had no real cause to take her into custody.  It was an illegal raid from every area I have looked at.  What was the motive?  Land and animal theft is what we have uncovered as some of the reasons for the raid.  



Look at the ground around this bathtub.  It is wet.  On the outer rim it is very dry.  It had not rained in over 10 days during that period and we have confirmed that based on weather history sites for this area.  That tub was filled with water and Animal Control as well as several Sheriff's deputies were conspiring to create fraudulent evidence against Laura Crews and stated in court, the animals had no water.  Well of course they had no water when Animal Control and Sheriff's deputies drain it all out from the various areas around the property.

Mike Soberick never argued these facts.  Attorney Mike Soberick never argued the illegal search warrant.  This guy has now been promoted to a Judge.  Commit fraud get a promotion?  Typical in Gloucester.  Judge Shaw who had to also see the illegal search warrant and had heard the case has gone from District Court Judge to Circuit Court Judge.  What a wonderful reward system.  Illegally convict people and get a promotion for doing such?  Really?    


And its all thanks to this guy right here.  Steve Baranek of Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Fake Audio Submitted As Evidence




The above video was created from a file provided to the Gloucester, Virginia District Court back in 2010.  This is one of several audio files.  This part of the audio was never played in court and one has to wonder why.  Listen to it and tell me that it isn't fake.  Yet Animal Control deputy, Steve Baranek, testified, under oath, that all audio he created and entered into court evidence was true and accurate.  This is from court file number DW_C0153.  Are you to tell me that a dog answered the phone?

  He also states he was shot at.  Below again is a copy of the court report from that case.  At no point was this man ever shot at like he states in the audio above.  But again, he did state, under oath no less, that the audio was not altered and is a true copy of everything that did happen.  So people are supposed to believe Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control how?  He can't be lying that he was shot at, but testimony from both the Sheriff's office, and him, fail to show that even one gun shot, at any point, at anytime took place?  Did Steve for some reason just decide to suppress this fact?  Was he just being a nice guy?

  There are just way to many questions in the entire case that do not for one minute begin to make sense to any mind of reason.

 

The gloucester, va case that never was from Chuck Thompson

By all means, here is today's challenge.  Find where Steve states in court that he was shot at.  It's all from the same case.  Laura Crews has petitioned the court for meta data on the audio files used against her on this case and all I can imagine is that she will get it once hell freezes over for obvious reasons.  We already know from inside the Sheriff's office that the Sheriff's office has destroyed evidence in regards to this case and I challenge the Sheriff's office to prove they did not.  Nothing against the present administration as this was done under Gentry when he still held office.  As the word goes, Gentry, ordered it destroyed.

Who wants to have some real fun with all of this?  Start at page 15 and go through at least to page 23.  Its a fast read.  You won't understand what you are reading until I point out a very cleat fact here.  Animal Control at no point has or ever had the ability to serve a search warrant.  They are forbidden by Virginia Code from doing such.  With that knowledge, now go read the suggested pages above.  How did Judge Shaw allow this case to move forward?  He had a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  He didn't do that.  Why?  Read the Canons of Judicial Conduct For The State of Virginia and you will see that Judge Shaw did in fact have a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  But this is just my opinion here and I am not an attorney trying to practice law.  I am simply reporting on what I see and read.

  If you are not an attorney you are considered to stupid to understand the law yet ignorance of the law is no excuse.  All of that from the same group of people who administer justice?  Yup!



Canons of Judicial Conduct: Virginia Commonwealth from Chuck Thompson

Because I recommend you read the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia, I provide them for you right here.  I don't make this stuff up.  They do.  I just show you where it all is.  Read section 3:D.  Guess who the Judge is the case against Laura Crews today.  Judge Shaw.  Are we going to see a repeat of these same shenanigans?  Actually he is about to be asked to recuse himself from the case as these matters are about to be brought into evidence once again.    

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

The Gloucester Magazine - Daffodil Festival Edition





The Gloucester Magazine vol 1 issue 1 from Chuck Thompson

We are introducing our newest creation by TTC Media.  The Gloucester Magazine covering Gloucester County, Virginia.  (We have readers from all over the world so we need to specify exact location here).  This is Volume One Issue One.  We are not producing this in print format.  This is strictly an online digital magazine.  This first edition is mostly all pictures and covers the Daffodil Festival from this past weekend.  We wanted to make it larger but due to computer issues, we had to stop at 26 pages.

  So far the feedback on the magazine is that people want it to be like a more traditional magazine with articles along with pictures.  We can do that.  Everyone is free to download and share this magazine with anyone they want however the contents of the magazine are under copyright so no part of the magazine may be printed or changed in any way without our express permission in writing in advance.   In order to download a copy you must first become a member of Slideshare itself.  Becoming a member is easy and free.  You can sign up using your Facebook or LinkedIn account or create a free account the normal way through Slideshare.  We hope everyone enjoys the latest creation.  We have a lot more in the works.

Gloucester, Virginia Steve Baranek of Animal Control - Fraud and Perjury?Above




Above is a video we just posted to You Tube that contains audio as recorded by Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control on July 26th, 2014.  The audio file is DW_D0503 and was submitted into evidence to bring two counts of misdemeanor charges against Laura Crews of Gloucester.  Listen to the audio clip.  Its 33 seconds long.  Within the first 30 seconds Steve makes 3 admissions.  He admits that he is just walking around killing a few minutes.  The second admission is that there are no animals at the yard sale he is at and the third admission is that he is somewhere he should not be because he states, "I can not go shopping on company time".

  The accusations of statutory violations filed against Laura Crews are 19.2-415 for Disorderly Conduct and the second one is 19.2-460 Obstruction of Justice.  Now if you read Virginia Code and look at the annotations on how that code is to be used, in Washington v Commonwealth, 2007, S.E.2d 485, it is clear that law-enforcement must be engaged in their lawful duty in order for there to be an obstruction of justice.  A police officer sitting at a desk waiting on transportation of Washington, when Washington stated he would kill the police officer, the police officer was not engaged in a lawful duty where obstruction of justice was claimed as a violation.  The court threw out the Commonwealths accusations.

  So again, looking at Steve's own admissions above I can not begin to see where there is any valid claim on these accusations of statutory violations.  Here is the information he provided to a grand jury in Virginia Beach.


You can click on the image to blow it up for easier reading.  This is the same complaint written by Steve Baranek that is in the video above.  It seems as though Mr Baranek has committed fraud and perjury here.  He knew through his own admission that there were no animals at the yard sale but claims the yard sale was a Chicken Swap which would indicate a potentially valid reason for being there.  (I say potentially valid reason but in my view even if animals were there Animal Control has no legal right to patrol.  Virginia is a Dillon Rule state and the state, from what I have tried to find, does not allow Animal Control the ability to patrol public areas, streets, highways and or buildings).  The claim of calling the yard sale a Chicken Swap is where Steve has committed perjury in my view.  I say my view as I am not an attorney and I am not trying to practice law.  I am only a witness to just about every event of this case except the July 26th, 2014 situation.  I am only reporting the information as I know and understand it.

  The above has been reported to Holly Smith, Commonwealth Attorney for Gloucester 9th District.  We are waiting to see what she says on this.  We have so called witness testimony provided by prosecution that actually has 4 so called witnesses against Laura Crews for the accusations of statutory violations, but the records show that the testimony actually works against Steve as they all state that Steve was at a yard sale.  (Not acting in an official capacity).  I also call the so called witnesses such as the prosecution has failed to provide evidence of witnesses against the accused in violation of rules of evidence even after she stated in court she would do so.  A motion to quash was filed against any form of witnesses because of such by Laura Crews.

  What is even worse, the audio evidence was provided to Laura, by the prosecution.  I have to assume that the prosecuting attorney was to busy to listen to it to realize what the audio actually contains.  This would seem to me to be malicious prosecution by the prosecutor for the case.   A motion to dismiss is now before the court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  A motion to show cause has also been filed to know by what authority Animal Control has of patrolling public areas, streets, highways and or buildings.  So far, not one motion filed by Laura Crews has ever been answered by anyone at anytime all in violation of court rules.  How does that work?  She was told in court that she has to follow the rules, but no one else has to?  And she is the one facing criminal sanctions?  I really do not understand how that works.  But that is the question of a reasonable person and we must not be dealing with any form of reason here.

  Who knows maybe they told her she "SHALL" follow the rules of the court which would mean that sometime in the future she may follow the rules of the court if she so pleases.  (Look up the definition of the word - "SHALL").

shall
SHal,SHəl/
verb
modal verb: shall
  1. 1.
    (in the first person) expressing the future tense.
    "this time next week I shall be in Scotland"
  2. 2.
    expressing a strong assertion or intention.
    "they shall succeed"
  3. 3.
    expressing an instruction or command.
    "you shall not steal"
  4. 4.
    used in questions indicating offers or suggestions.
    "shall I send you the book?"